AMZED DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. DATO' MAT JAHYA BIN HUSSIN 2. DATIN NAIMAH BINTI JAAFAR

AMZED DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. DATO' MAT JAHYA BIN HUSSIN 2. DATIN NAIMAH BINTI JAAFAR

The Court held the completion period could not be fixed as running from signing prior to statutory approvals; approvals determined when the 24-month period could be measured, parties’ conduct and agreed extensions put time at large, D9's 30 June 2017 date was only an estimate, the Respondents were estopped from pursuing the suit after agreeing to withdraw, and the valuation evidence was inadmissible for non‑compliance with O.40A r.3; accordingly there was no proven delay or entitlement to damages and the appeal was allowed.

Citation
R-02(NCVC)(W)-1356-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: AMZED DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD; Respondent 1: Dato’ Mat Jahya bin Hussin; Respondent 2: Datin Naimah binti Jaafar
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 July 2020
Case Number
R-02(NCVC)(W)-1356-07/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; costs awarded to Appellant
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Extension of Time, Time of the Essence, Damages for Delay, Estoppel, Expert Evidence Procedure, Statutory Limitation on Agreements
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Property Law Evidence Law Contract Interpretation Extension of Time Time of the Essence Damages for Delay +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMZED DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Appellant

Dato’ Mat Jahya bin Hussin

Respondent 1

Datin Naimah binti Jaafar

Respondent 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When the 24-month completion period commences (signing date vs after statutory approvals)
  2. 2 Whether parties validly extended time for completion and effect of D9
  3. 3 Whether payments were consideration or gratuitous (wang ikhsan)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the completion period could not be fixed as running from signing prior to statutory approvals; approvals determined when the 24-month period could be measured, parties’ conduct and agreed extensions put time at large, D9's 30 June 2017 date was only an estimate, the Respondents were estopped from pursuing the suit after agreeing to withdraw, and the valuation evidence was inadmissible for non‑compliance with O.40A r.3; accordingly there was no proven delay or entitlement to damages and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; costs awarded to Appellant

Orders

  • Allow the appeal
  • Set aside the decision of the High Court